Re: Bug#988740: unblock: glibc/2.31-12

[Paul Gevers]

Hi kibi,

On 24-05-2021 06:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Nothing dramatic, we'll be more explicit next time and pick an option
> for real instead of considering both options and letting one pick a
> favorite. :)

Let's agree on that indeed. It's a shame that we get into these
annoyances, while all we try to do is help each other.

Paul



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#988740: unblock: glibc/2.31-12

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi Paul,

Paul Gevers  (2021-05-20):
> On 20-05-2021 08:23, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Having udeb-producing packages change under our feet when we're in
> > the middle of unentangling the rendering mess isn't exactly nice…
> 
> I'm terribly sorry, but I thought we discussed migrating udeb generating
> packages recently on IRC #d-release. I now realize that's a bit longer
> ago than I though. To quote you:
> 
> [00:00:00] - {Day changed to Monday, 26 April 2021}
> [22:06:17]  looks to me we have enough to fix and/or to debug on
> our plate that we won't be issuing another RC in a week or so, so
> freezing everyone (keeping everyone frozen) will only generate more
> requests for acks; at this stage, it's likely easier to let stuff
> migrate and deal with consequences afterward
> 
> I interpreted that as you are sort of fine at this moment if we
> migrated the packages if they are otherwise fine. We should have
> agreed on a schedule and it was on my TODO list to ask you today.

I'm a little too lazy to dig into IRC logs, but I'm pretty sure we had
two possibilities: either keep all udeb-producing frozen and deal with
individual requests; or lift the general block-udeb. Given nothing
changed in britney1.git since Apr 14, I seemed to me we went for d-i
acks (which I've tried to handle swiftly) and that's what got me
surprised for the glibc thing.

Nothing dramatic, we'll be more explicit next time and pick an option
for real instead of considering both options and letting one pick a
favorite. :)


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#988740: unblock: glibc/2.31-12

[Paul Gevers]

Hi Cyril

On 20-05-2021 08:23, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Having udeb-producing packages change under our feet when we're in
> the middle of unentangling the rendering mess isn't exactly nice…

I'm terribly sorry, but I thought we discussed migrating udeb generating
packages recently on IRC #d-release. I now realize that's a bit longer
ago than I though. To quote you:

[00:00:00] - {Day changed to Monday, 26 April 2021}
[22:06:17]  looks to me we have enough to fix and/or to debug on
our plate that we won't be issuing another RC in a week or so, so
freezing everyone (keeping everyone frozen) will only generate more
requests for acks; at this stage, it's likely easier to let stuff
migrate and deal with consequences afterward

I interpreted that as you are sort of fine at this moment if we migrated
the packages if they are otherwise fine. We should have agreed on a
schedule and it was on my TODO list to ask you today.

Additional note: glibc is on the list of build-essentials [1], so,
according to our freeze policy [2] it would have needed a pre-approval
already.

Paul

[1] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/essential-and-build-essential.txt
[2] https://release.debian.org/bullseye/freeze_policy.html#transition



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Bug#988740: unblock: glibc/2.31-12

[Cyril Brulebois]

Hi,

Aurelien Jarno  (2021-05-18):
> [ Risks ]
> The fixes related to the testsuite involves many changes to our build
> system, by letting the upstream makefiles to install the ld.so symlink
> instead of doing it in the Debian makefiles, in an architecture specific
> way for bi/tri-arch packages. While the changes might look risky at a
> first glance, they do not change the code in the binaries, but only the
> ld.so symlinks and the libc.so linker scripts. Those have been verified
> manually on the packages built by glibc and cross-toolchain-base.
> 
> [ Checklist ]
>   [x] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
>   [x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
>   [x] attach debdiff against the package in testing

No objection, thanks.

Just to be on the safe side, I've built a netboot-gtk image against
unstable's udebs and run a few installation and rescue tests, using
various languages and I haven't noticed anything worrisome.


And since I was wondering what the change was for the German debconf
template, running `d` told me the package has migrated already, and
it was indeed already unblock(-udeb)'ed…

Having udeb-producing packages change under our feet when we're in
the middle of unentangling the rendering mess isn't exactly nice…


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org)
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature